In Hahn v. Diaz-Barb (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, the defendant argued, like Doe here, that "as part of defendants' burden on the threshold suitability issue, they were required to educate the court on the subject matter jurisdiction of Mexican courts, and because they submitted no evidence that the courts there would have subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute concerning tortious conduct committed in California, they failed to satisfy the burden." (Hahn, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1188.) In rejecting this claim, the appellate court first noted that it was not the defendant's burden to present evidence regarding the laws of Mexico and whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to meet the threshold requirement of a suitable alternative forum. Rather, the Hahn court noted the defendant was relying upon "the rare 'no remedy at all' exception. In California, the 'no remedy at all' exception has been construed to apply only narrowly, 'such as where the alternative forum is a foreign country whose courts are ruled by a dictatorship, so that there is no independent judiciary or due process of law.' ." (Id. at pp. 1188-1189.) The Hahn court then noted that the plaintiffs had not argued that Mexico lacked an independent judiciary or American "concepts of due process and fairness." It also relied on other court cases finding that Mexico would provide for such a lawsuit. (Id. at pp. 1189-1190.) It concluded, "it is apparent that when the defendants meet this burden stipulating to the tolling of the statute of limitations and agreeing to jurisdiction, a burden of production falls on the plaintiffs if they wish to show the alternative forum is nonetheless unsuitable because the action cannot actually be brought there despite the defendants' stipulations." (Id. at p. 1191.)